CST Cleaning v National Parks Board: Indemnity Clause & Concurrent Negligence

CST Cleaning & Trading Pte Ltd (“the Contractor”) appealed against the decision to pay the National Parks Board (“the Board”) $114,270.52 pursuant to an indemnity clause. The High Court considered the interpretation of the indemnity clause in a contract where the Board incurred liability due to concurrent negligence and occupier's liability. The court allowed the appeal in part, holding the Contractor liable for 50% of the loss suffered by the Board.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed in part. The Contractor is liable for 50% of the loss suffered by the Board.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

CST Cleaning appealed an order to indemnify National Parks Board. The court considered the interpretation of an indemnity clause in a contract.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
CST Cleaning & Trading Pte LtdAppellantCorporationAppeal allowed in partPartial
National Parks BoardRespondentStatutory BoardPartial IndemnificationPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chan Sek KeongChief JusticeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Letchamanan DevadasonSteven Lee, Dason & Khoo
Mahtani BhagwandasHarpal Mahtani Partnership
Ramesh SelvarajAllen & Gledhill LLP

4. Facts

  1. The Contractor agreed to provide cleaning services to the Park.
  2. A boy was injured when he collided with a lorry driven by the Subcontractor's employee.
  3. The Board was found liable for negligence and/or occupier’s liability.
  4. The Subcontractor was found negligent.
  5. The Magistrate apportioned liability at 50% for each party.
  6. The Board paid the entire amount of damages to the injured boy.
  7. The Board sought indemnification from the Contractor under the contract.

5. Formal Citations

  1. CST Cleaning & Trading Pte Ltd v National Parks Board, DA 5/2008, [2008] SGHC 140

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Contract signed
Accident occurred at Pasir Ris Park
Action commenced in Magistrate’s Court Suit No 1693 of 2001
Action commenced in District Court Suit No 1111 of 2005
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Interpretation of Indemnity Clause
    • Outcome: The court interpreted the indemnity clause to apply to the extent of the Contractor's negligence, not for the Board's own negligence.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Application of contra proferentem rule
      • Effect of concurrent negligence
    • Related Cases:
      • [2008] SGDC 7
      • [1949] 1 All ER 540
      • [1952] AC 192
      • [1978] 1 WLR 165
      • [1994] 1 WLR 221
      • [1997] 3 SLR 625
      • [2008] SGCA 26
      • [1994] 1 WLR 1515
  2. Concurrent Negligence
    • Outcome: The court found that the injury was caused by the concurrent negligence of both parties.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1994] 1 WLR 221
      • [1994] 1 WLR 1515

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Indemnification
  2. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Negligence
  • Occupier's Liability

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Construction Disputes

11. Industries

  • Construction
  • Cleaning Services
  • Government

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
National Parks Board v CST Cleaning & Trading Pte LtdDistrict CourtYes[2008] SGDC 7SingaporeCited as the judgment under appeal.
Oli Mohamed v MurphyUnknownYes[1969-1971] SLR 270SingaporeCited regarding joint liability for damages.
Wong Jin Fah v L & M Prestressing Pte LtdUnknownYes[2001] 4 SLR 529SingaporeCited regarding joint liability for damages.
Hosking v De Havilland Aircraft Co, LtdEnglish High CourtYes[1949] 1 All ER 540England and WalesCited regarding the interpretation of indemnity clauses in cases of concurrent negligence, but ultimately distinguished.
Canada Steamship Lines Ld v The KingPrivy CouncilYes[1952] AC 192United KingdomCited for the principles of construction relating to exemption clauses, which are applicable to indemnity clauses.
Smith v South Wales Switchgear Co LtdUnknownYes[1978] 1 WLR 165United KingdomCited for the principle that it is inherently improbable that one party should agree to discharge the liability of the other.
E E Caledonia Ltd v Orbit Valve Co EuropeUnknownYes[1994] 1 WLR 221England and WalesCited for a summary of the principles of construction of exemption and indemnity clauses and their relationship to the contra proferentem rule.
Marina Centre Holdings Pte Ltd v Pars Carpet Gallery Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[1997] 3 SLR 625SingaporeCited for the 'inherently improbable' principle of construction in the context of an exemption clause.
Tay Eng Chuan v Ace Insurance LtdCourt of AppealYes[2008] SGCA 26SingaporeCited for the contra proferentem rule of interpretation of exemption clauses.
E E Caledonia Ltd v Orbit Valve Co EuropeCourt of AppealYes[1994] 1 WLR 1515England and WalesCited for the legal effect of concurrent causes in relation to an indemnity clause.
Photo Production Ltd. v. Securicor Transport Ltd.House of LordsYes[1980] A.C. 827United KingdomCited for the approach to interpreting commercial agreements.
Gillespie Bros. & Co. Ltd. v. Roy Bowles Transport Ltd.UnknownYes[1973] Q.B. 400United KingdomCited regarding constructional implication in contracts.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Indemnity Clause
  • Concurrent Negligence
  • Occupier's Liability
  • Contra Proferentem
  • Vicarious Liability
  • Proviso
  • Subcontractor
  • Personal Injury
  • Breach of Duty

15.2 Keywords

  • indemnity
  • negligence
  • contract
  • construction
  • cleaning
  • National Parks Board
  • CST Cleaning
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Contract Law90
Indemnity90
Occupiers' Liability80
Negligence70
Personal Injury60
Rules of construction50
Property Law30

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Tort Law
  • Construction Law
  • Indemnity
  • Negligence